Up and running.

Up and running.

Greetings,

My new site is up and running.

http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html

Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's tribute
to follow shortly.

I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.

Take Care,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> My new site is up and running.
>
> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>
> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's tribute
> to follow shortly.
>
> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.

Clean & simple, works perfect for me. The colors make my eyes twitch, I
don't know if that's intentional... the green ring & teal/aqua
background vibrate as if they were complimentary colors. Maybe it's the
'orange' (tan) backdrop and 'blue' teal matte.

A very handsome portrait.

--
Paul Furman
www .edgehill,net
www .baynatives,com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Re: Up and running.


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill,net > wrote in message
news:r%8Wj.486$BL6.457@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc,com ...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> My new site is up and running.
>>
>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>
>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>
>> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
>> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>
> Clean & simple, works perfect for me. The colors make my eyes twitch, I
> don't know if that's intentional... the green ring & teal/aqua background
> vibrate as if they were complimentary colors. Maybe it's the 'orange'
> (tan) backdrop and 'blue' teal matte.
>
> A very handsome portrait.
>
> --
> Paul Furman


Thanks, Paul, I appreciate the feedback.

My daughter, Amelia (grade 6), did the post-processing on the pic, so the
colour scheme is a bit youthful. But, I want to build her enthusiasm, so I
just let her run with it.

As it is, she figured out most of the steps to photoshop the image on her
own. All-in-all, I think she did a pretty good job.

The pup, Elliot, is a 10-month old Lab my family was bording for the
weekend. He really livened up the place. He-ll make a great therapy dog
for somebody, soon.

Take Care,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill,net > wrote in message
> news:r%8Wj.486$BL6.457@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> My new site is up and running.
>>>
>>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>
>>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>>
>>> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
>>> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>> Clean & simple, works perfect for me. The colors make my eyes twitch, I
>> don't know if that's intentional... the green ring & teal/aqua background
>> vibrate as if they were complimentary colors. Maybe it's the 'orange'
>> (tan) backdrop and 'blue' teal matte.
>>
>> A very handsome portrait.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Furman
>
>
> Thanks, Paul, I appreciate the feedback.
>
> My daughter, Amelia (grade 6), did the post-processing on the pic, so the
> colour scheme is a bit youthful. But, I want to build her enthusiasm, so I
> just let her run with it.

Good young energy!

> As it is, she figured out most of the steps to photoshop the image on her
> own. All-in-all, I think she did a pretty good job.
>
> The pup, Elliot, is a 10-month old Lab my family was bording for the
> weekend. He really livened up the place. He-ll make a great therapy dog
> for somebody, soon.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
>
>


--
Paul Furman
www .edgehill,net
www .baynatives,com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Re: Up and running.

Paul Furman wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> My new site is up and running.
>>
>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>
>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>

Just a note about the image size. You have the image resized by the
browser, rather than shrinking it in an image editor first. Hence it's
about 20 times or so to large, a bit punishing for anyone with dialup!

Aside from that, very bold!

Jeff

>> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
>> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>
> Clean & simple, works perfect for me. The colors make my eyes twitch, I
> don't know if that's intentional... the green ring & teal/aqua
> background vibrate as if they were complimentary colors. Maybe it's the
> 'orange' (tan) backdrop and 'blue' teal matte.
>
> A very handsome portrait.
>

Re: Up and running.



Jeff wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> My new site is up and running.
>>>
>>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>
>>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>>
>
> Just a note about the image size. You have the image resized by the
> browser, rather than shrinking it in an image editor first. Hence
> it's about 20 times or so to large, a bit punishing for anyone with
> dialup!
> Aside from that, very bold!
>
> Jeff
>

Here y'go:
http :// farm3.static.flickr,com /2332/2489980432 1bd8130b2f o.jpg
Perfectly satisfactory for Web viewing.

--
Frank ess

>>> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed
>>> up. Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>>
>> Clean & simple, works perfect for me. The colors make my eyes
>> twitch, I don't know if that's intentional... the green ring &
>> teal/aqua background vibrate as if they were complimentary colors.
>> Maybe it's the 'orange' (tan) backdrop and 'blue' teal matte.
>>
>> A very handsome portrait.

Re: Up and running.


"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not,com > wrote in message
news:UuOdnawu3coYwLTVnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> My new site is up and running.
>>>
>>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>
>>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>>
>
> Just a note about the image size. You have the image resized by the
> browser, rather than shrinking it in an image editor first. Hence it's
> about 20 times or so to large, a bit punishing for anyone with dialup!
>
Sorry, Jeff, I guess I got a bit carried away with all my new disk space and
bandwidth; I forgot about dialup limitations.

After using a site with only 15 megs of disk space and a 4 meg bandwidth, it
was hard to resist just slapping down the image and resizing it. I'll
shrink it later tonight.

Take Care,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam me not,com > wrote in message
> news:UuOdnawu3coYwLTVnZ2dnUVZ qzinZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> My new site is up and running.
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>>>> tribute to follow shortly.
>>>>
>> Just a note about the image size. You have the image resized by the
>> browser, rather than shrinking it in an image editor first. Hence it's
>> about 20 times or so to large, a bit punishing for anyone with dialup!
>>
> Sorry, Jeff, I guess I got a bit carried away with all my new disk space and
> bandwidth; I forgot about dialup limitations.
>
> After using a site with only 15 megs of disk space and a 4 meg bandwidth, it
> was hard to resist just slapping down the image and resizing it. I'll
> shrink it later tonight.

Even not considering the bandwidth (this is about 6 seconds on many
DSL connections), images tend to look better if your image editor does
the sizing rather than having the browser size it. Browsers do a poor
job of anti aliasing edges. Not really a problem with your image due to
the extreme resampling.

On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float the
image right, is all.

Jeff
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>

Re: Up and running.

> On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
> nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float the
> image right, is all.
>
> Jeff
>>


I tried something similar to that for an earlier version (on my other site),
and the text tended to get screwed up when browser windows were small. So,
I opted for the table approach as per some other users suggestion.

As far as accessability goes, table lay-outs work fine; they are just a
pain to set up when using a screen reader.
But, I'm getting better at it.

However, I'll re-read my info on positioning images and maybe give it a try
again. It will probably get easier when I get into using cascading style
sheets, in a few weeks.

Thanks for the comments,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
>> nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float the
>> image right, is all.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
> I tried something similar to that for an earlier version (on my other site),
> and the text tended to get screwed up when browser windows were small.

How was that?
So,
> I opted for the table approach as per some other users suggestion.
>
> As far as accessability goes, table lay-outs work fine; they are just a
> pain to set up when using a screen reader.
> But, I'm getting better at it.
>
> However, I'll re-read my info on positioning images and maybe give it a try
> again. It will probably get easier when I get into using cascading style
> sheets, in a few weeks.

Are you taking a course?

Screw the wait and do it now. Take a look at the fluid layout site
that the "Not so Fat Man" did. That's nice work. But you don't need
something that complex.

Your site has a lot of weird white space where you don't need it. I'd
be suspicious of anyone who hasn't mentioned that. It's kind of all over
the place.

BTW, give it a strict doctype, I'm surprised Blinky didn't mention
that. You'll need that later when you get more advanced...

Jeff
>
> Thanks for the comments,
> Dudley
>
>
>

Re: Up and running.


"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not,com > wrote in message
news:Ar-dnbeP8sOTqLfVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
>>> nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float the
>>> image right, is all.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> I tried something similar to that for an earlier version (on my other
>> site), and the text tended to get screwed up when browser windows were
>> small.
>
> How was that?

Users who sized their windows down a bit reported that the text would
overlap the image and was hard to read. See:
http :// geocities,com /hanks.dudley/index.html

I think the page is still there. I have to shut it down properly yet.

> So,
>> I opted for the table approach as per some other users suggestion.
>>
>> As far as accessability goes, table lay-outs work fine; they are just a
>> pain to set up when using a screen reader.
>> But, I'm getting better at it.
>>
>> However, I'll re-read my info on positioning images and maybe give it a
>> try again. It will probably get easier when I get into using cascading
>> style sheets, in a few weeks.
>
> Are you taking a course?

No, I'm just scanning a few books I got from the library. Unfortunately,
computer books don't scan all that well -- too many font variations and
weird column alignments -- so I have to do a lot of cross referencing with
web sources -- where possible.
Of course, when I've gone through the previous steps, I take a stab at it,
post it if I think it's working, and usenet members are kind enough to fine
tune my code.

Not the most efficient learning environment ever devised, but it works.

Taking an actual course is even tougher. In addition to competing with
sighted students, I have to add in the time it takes to scan the material
and sort through it. While I have a fairly high IQ, I need to work within
the limitations of my disability, which entails taking extra time. When
it's all said-and-done, the credentials won't do me any good anyway, so I've
opted to just do it myself. Hence, my new site. It's cost me a couple of
hundred bucks, but I can go through the books, try it out, and then
implement something that is more likely to be compatible with my situation
than if I were to try a more traditional approach. Taking a course would
probably cost no less, and I wouldn't learn as much. I can tailor this
project to my own needs, and vary it as I please if things don't work.

Besides, even when I had more sight, I was more apt to go my own way than
follow the main stream.
>
> Screw the wait and do it now. Take a look at the fluid layout site that
> the "Not so Fat Man" did. That's nice work. But you don't need something
> that complex.

Thanks, I'll check it out. My screen reader will butcher the visual appeal
but it will be rendered in a nicely linear fashion. Using hot keys
(provided both by Microsoft and the screen reader company), I can jump
around to major components / objects. It's all very business like, but not
very conducive to appreciation of the site's finer points.

>
> Your site has a lot of weird white space where you don't need it. I'd be
> suspicious of anyone who hasn't mentioned that. It's kind of all over the
> place.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll start keeping closer tabs on my wife....
Just kidding...

As content increases, I'm sure my white space will become more normal.
Also, the amount of white space is probably directly related to monitor size
and browser window resizing. If someone is running a browser maximized on a
21" monitor, white space will abound; for a quarter of a 15" monitor,
things might even be a bit cluttered given the size of the image. I have no
control over layout when viewed in those terms.

>
> BTW, give it a strict doctype, I'm surprised Blinky didn't mention that.
> You'll need that later when you get more advanced...

With the meager limitations on my last site, I was using a text editor I
compiled myself to edit the html. Now that I've got a more useable site,
I'll try out some of the better editors to see if I can find one that works
with my reader. Word is fairly compatible, but I would like to find
something that is a bit less Microsoft oriented.

Out of curiosity, does giving it a doc type make that much of a difference?
If I try maintaining a fairly general level of compatibility with html 3.2
or 4 will I need that particular element?

>
Thanks for the advice. I'll do my best to learn from it.

Take Care,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam me not,com > wrote in message
> news:Ar-dnbeP8sOTqLfVnZ2dnUVZ j-dnZ2d@earthlink,com ...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> On another note, you can ditch the table layout if you wish and get
>>>> nearly the same look. That may help with accessibility, just float the
>>>> image right, is all.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> I tried something similar to that for an earlier version (on my other
>>> site), and the text tended to get screwed up when browser windows were
>>> small.
>> How was that?
>
> Users who sized their windows down a bit reported that the text would
> overlap the image and was hard to read. See:
> http :// geocities,com /hanks.dudley/index.html

That's all table based. And the problem here is that you have some
tables aligned right and some center. It's just weird html.

Plain old html won't lap text on images on you have set negative
margins ar force things out through relative positioning.
>
> I think the page is still there. I have to shut it down properly yet.
>
>> So,
>>> I opted for the table approach as per some other users suggestion.
>>>
>>> As far as accessability goes, table lay-outs work fine; they are just a
>>> pain to set up when using a screen reader.
>>> But, I'm getting better at it.
>>>
>>> However, I'll re-read my info on positioning images and maybe give it a
>>> try again. It will probably get easier when I get into using cascading
>>> style sheets, in a few weeks.
>> Are you taking a course?
>
> No, I'm just scanning a few books I got from the library. Unfortunately,
> computer books don't scan all that well -- too many font variations and
> weird column alignments -- so I have to do a lot of cross referencing with
> web sources -- where possible.
> Of course, when I've gone through the previous steps, I take a stab at it,
> post it if I think it's working, and usenet members are kind enough to fine
> tune my code.

Try an html group. Everything you should want should already be
online, this is after, what is all about!
>
> Not the most efficient learning environment ever devised, but it works.
>
> Taking an actual course is even tougher. In addition to competing with
> sighted students, I have to add in the time it takes to scan the material
> and sort through it. While I have a fairly high IQ, I need to work within
> the limitations of my disability, which entails taking extra time. When
> it's all said-and-done, the credentials won't do me any good anyway, so I've
> opted to just do it myself. Hence, my new site. It's cost me a couple of
> hundred bucks, but I can go through the books, try it out, and then
> implement something that is more likely to be compatible with my situation
> than if I were to try a more traditional approach. Taking a course would
> probably cost no less, and I wouldn't learn as much. I can tailor this
> project to my own needs, and vary it as I please if things don't work.
>
> Besides, even when I had more sight, I was more apt to go my own way than
> follow the main stream.
>> Screw the wait and do it now. Take a look at the fluid layout site that
>> the "Not so Fat Man" did. That's nice work. But you don't need something
>> that complex.
>
> Thanks, I'll check it out. My screen reader will butcher the visual appeal
> but it will be rendered in a nicely linear fashion. Using hot keys
> (provided both by Microsoft and the screen reader company), I can jump
> around to major components / objects. It's all very business like, but not
> very conducive to appreciation of the site's finer points.
>
>> Your site has a lot of weird white space where you don't need it. I'd be
>> suspicious of anyone who hasn't mentioned that. It's kind of all over the
>> place.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. I'll start keeping closer tabs on my wife....
> Just kidding...
>
> As content increases, I'm sure my white space will become more normal.
> Also, the amount of white space is probably directly related to monitor size
> and browser window resizing. If someone is running a browser maximized on a
> 21" monitor, white space will abound; for a quarter of a 15" monitor,
> things might even be a bit cluttered given the size of the image. I have no
> control over layout when viewed in those terms.

I don't think so. It's just poor flow with one of tables or rows trying
to flow past the image, I believe.

If you'd like, I can set this up very simply so it can be styled.
>
>> BTW, give it a strict doctype, I'm surprised Blinky didn't mention that.
>> You'll need that later when you get more advanced...
>
> With the meager limitations on my last site, I was using a text editor I
> compiled myself to edit the html. Now that I've got a more useable site,
> I'll try out some of the better editors to see if I can find one that works
> with my reader. Word is fairly compatible, but I would like to find
> something that is a bit less Microsoft oriented.

There are a lot of text editors. Don't use Word. I use the free
version of Note Tab. But there are many inexpensive and free editors
that are better.
>
> Out of curiosity, does giving it a doc type make that much of a difference?
> If I try maintaining a fairly general level of compatibility with html 3.2
> or 4 will I need that particular element?

What is going is that you are running in what is know as "quirks mode".
Each browser will interpret that slightly differently. In "standards
mode", everyone is playing by similar rules (more or less).

Jeff
>
> Thanks for the advice. I'll do my best to learn from it.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>

Re: Up and running.

Dudley Hanks wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> My new site is up and running.
>
> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>
> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's tribute
> to follow shortly.
>
> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>

Not trying to nit-pick, just my observations. The color box around the
portrait could be just a tad smaller (square vs. rectangular). The
copyright notice line "All rights reserved," probably should be on the
same line as the copyright notice itself.


- JT
Nice, simple web-site. I like it.

--
See Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio

"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung

Re: Up and running.


"JT's Ghost" <justatroll@mad.scientist,com > wrote in message
news:4ffWj.280$ll1.1@trndny06...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> My new site is up and running.
>>
>> http :// www .photography.dudley-hanks,com /Light-And-Sight/index.html
>>
>> Other than "Elliot's Portrait," there isn't much there yet. Dima's
>> tribute
>> to follow shortly.
>>
>> I hope you enjoy, and, as always, please let me know if I screwed up.
>> Mistakes aren't always evident with a screen reader.
>>
>
> Not trying to nit-pick, just my observations. The color box around the
> portrait could be just a tad smaller (square vs. rectangular). The
> copyright notice line "All rights reserved," probably should be on the
> same line as the copyright notice itself.
>
>
> - JT
>
Actually, JT, I learn a lot from nit-pickers.

I don't think this particular image will be up long enough to worry about
changing it, but I'll make a note of your comments and do a double check the
next time I post something similar -- which could be early next week.
There's a good chanced we'll be bording another pup this coming weekend, and
we'll be taking it to a neat dinosaur museum, so opportunities for picks
will abound. If I do a portrait for Macey (the 9-month old pup) the square
format will get used.

As for the copyright notice, I've got it in my notes to check out a few
other sites to see how other people post their notices. I'll try to adopt
something more main stream then.

Take Care,
Dudley

Re: Up and running.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:47:49 +0000, Dudley Hanks wrote:

> As for the copyright notice, I've got it in my notes to check out a few
> other sites to see how other people post their notices. I'll try to
> adopt something more main stream then.

In the meantime you might want to fix the typo in your code - it says
'alighn' rather than 'align' on the "All Rights Reserved" line. :-)